Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

Yes, some very good points were made here! Throughout history, a majority of women have not had the luxury of being able to not work.

If you read accounts of women in various historical periods, you find long days of work. Consider how agricultural this country and many other countries were prior to the 20th Century. If the husband was a farmer, then the wife was also a farmer. She didn't own the farm, but she did a lot of the heavy work that the farmer (i.e., her husband) did. It wasn't like she just did the easy chores. Then, on top of that, she also had to take care of the children and do the cleaning. In the towns and cities, it was very common for women to do sewing jobs, as well as teaching, clerical work, cleaning, spinning, and lots of tedious tasks requiring some degree of manual dexterity (because it was perceived that since women had more slender fingers, they could do some tasks more easily).

A relative told me that even as late as the 1940s, when the war was on, that many women went to work in the factories to help the war effort. When the men returned home, that's when the "Ozzie and Harriet" stay-at-home Mom appeared. I suspect that one reason for it's emergence is because there was a steadily growing middle class, whereas historically in the U.S. and many countries, the middle class was much smaller. But in any case, the artificial creation of the 'traditional woman' in the 1950s did not resemble the lives of women from earlier decades.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saganista

A good deal of silliness in this thread over 'traditional roles'. The stay-at-home Mom for instance is a Norman Rockwell myth. There have been very few (and very brief) times in this country's history when any signficant portion of the female population could afford not to work. One of these was during the 1950's, and the biggest social problem of the time was...juvenile delinquency. That's right...one of the highest stay-at-home Mom rates in recorded US history and all we got was beatniks, that sinful rock-and-roll, and juvenile delinquency. And even then, of course, stay-at-home Mom's weren't actually expected to stay at home. No, they were expected to go out and work at least a day or two a week...as volunteers. Volunteers. That's where you work, but you get no pay. Can you say exploitation?

Furthermore, few realize that the 'ideal' that is held out by so-called traditionalists is nothing more than a distorted caricature of envy taken from the lifestyles lived by the wives of uber-rich industrialists, bankers, and other tycoons of the robber-baron era. Stay-at-home Mom-ism is nothing more than keeping up with the Joneses taken to an extreme, some might say almost psychotic, degree.

None of this is to say that women should work. Women are a group. Groups don't actually exist. Individuals exist. Groups are mere statistical constructs that we've made up to help us try to keep track of things. Individuals should decide things for themselves. How do they feel? How do they view their situations? How do they see their own needs and desires? What do they want to do about them? Individuals do not need harpies from any archaic social viewpoint lecturing them about what is the proper conduct of their own personal and familial lives. These people do not know anything about me or my family or our situation or our talents or our needs and desires. These various interlopers -- and there are bunches of them -- should simply butt out. In their perverse desire to bring back a time that never existed to begin with, these moralizers end up (as usual) doing a good deal more harm than good...

Your hopes will be dashed to the extent that any are prompted to go to the actual history and see for themselves. Inserting facts in the place of a fairy tale is not revisionism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by my2kidsmom

Second, there is a world of difference between a woman who is home rearing her young children, and perhaps taking on additional work in order to contribute to the family's resources vs. a woman dumping her children in full time daycare in order to go out and pursue her career. The second is done for the womans own personal desires which are in many cases put first before the needs of the children which she has brought into the world.

Apparently, you are one of those meddlers I was referring to -- able to peer into the situations and thought processes of millions of people you don't even know and draw definitive conclusions about them, their motives, and their morality. A bit presumptuous of you from any independent point of view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by my2kidsmom

Third, to equate volunteerism as exploitation speaks volumes about where you are coming from.

There is a great deal of difference between volunteering and being expected to volunteer whether you want to or not. You should perhaps look into the extent to which various corporate balance sheets reflected work provided gratis by these volunteers during the 1950's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by my2kidsmom

Those who volunteer do so for the betterment of soceity, and ought to be applauded, not riduculed by people like you who want to devalue their efforts and ambitions.

I criticize the pressuring of people (women or not) into volunteering and any concomittant economic exploitation of the talents and training of those who may have acceded to that pressure.

Some of us are proud of the collective value we as a group can have on soceity. What is wrong with those who share in mutual ideals joining forces for the betterment of any said cause?

Aha. Another closet socialist. It's okay. You can admit it. You don't have to hide it anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by my2kidsmom

I have zero patience for those who put their personal ideals, wants, needs, desires above and beyond their children, soceity, family, etc.

And no working mother anywhere has taken any account of her children, her family, or her society? That's your view? None works precisely because of a desire to contribute to the health and well-being of each of these? That's an incredibly narrow and disconnected view to have, if I may say so...

This is an interesting piece - indicating that even as women now have more opportunities and are getting more advanced degrees, many of these qualified women in GenX value family time over career advancement and are willing to drop out of work to be with their children during their formative years. It also reports a trend of fathers now helping out more around the house. I think these are good trends for the kids' sake.

Time magazine reported on a Catalyst survey from 2001 that found Gen Xers are unwilling “to make the kind of trade-off” that previous generations made. Further, Catalyst found that “both women and men [Gen Xers] rated personal and family goals higher than career goals.” These findings indicate a profound shift of attitude in the workforce.
Leslie Stahl reported on 60 Minutes (CBS, October 2004), that over the past decade the number of stay-at-home moms increased by 15 percent. Even so, nearly three-fourths of mothers with children under 18 are in the work force. Well-educated mothers with infants, though, are dropping out (59 percent in 1997 compared to 53 percent in 2000). The Beverly LaHaye Institute first reported this trend in its Data Digest. Nearly a quarter of these stay-at-home moms have graduate or professional degrees. This trend is “huge” says Howard Hayghe, an economist with the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
According to a 2005 Harvard Business Review (HBR) study, family responsibilities are identified as the motivating force behind young careerists who choose to “off-ramp.” Gen X parents say they spend more time on child-rearing (51 percent of the women are stay-at-home moms) and household tasks than the Boomer parents (33 percent of the women were full-time mothers) did; further, they express the desire to spend more time –– especially those in the higher income brackets. The Los Angeles Times reported that fathers today are helping around the house much more than a decade ago (34 percent compared to 24 percent).
HBR estimates that women lose about 18 percent of their earning power when they off-ramp. Many young professionals view this as an acceptable loss for being able to parent their children.

Saganista No, I admit I have never heard of the pressured voluteerism of women you speak of. So who was it that held guns to these poor womens heads, forcing them to get out and volunteer? What if they said no? Did their men beat them, starve them, lock them up, what??? It's hard for me to even imagine that...Just another example of your liberal revisionism I suspect.
No I'm no socialist, thanks for asking. I am a conservative and traditionalist, as I have already told you. I do however believe that every member of soceity leaves an impact with their actions, whether they be good or bad. That is why I am very aware of my actions and try to be a good example for friends, neighbors, strangers, etc. It's actually a concept those of us who are religiously minded beleive in, and I'm sure you would be excluded from that group. Oh yes, that's another example of a group: like minded folks who organize and establish a church where they can mutually worship as a GROUP.
And yes, I am able to make discernments about people and their motives. Call it a sixth sense, to some extent.

Saganista No, I admit I have never heard of the pressured voluteerism of women you speak of.

But on that basis, you file a claim of revisionism. You haven't personally heard of it, and certainly didn't live it, so anyone who mentions it is a revisionist. 2 + 2 = 5.

Quote:

Originally Posted by my2kidsmom

So who was it that held guns to these poor womens heads...

Societal expectations. The same thing that drives people into roles they may not be comfortable with today. In some cases, even to the point of having babies that they do not want. This is not a force that should be taken lightly. If you took a step back, there are no doubt various cases where you could see it at play in your own life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by my2kidsmom

No I'm no socialist, thanks for asking.

Yes, you are. Either that or you will need to disavow your earlier post. Are you still proud of the collective value that we as a group can have on society, or are you not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by my2kidsmom

I am a conservative and traditionalist, as I have already told you.

If you were a traditionalist, you would support the idea of women at work, as that has been the overwhelming tradition in this country since the days before its founding. If you were a conservative, it might be expected of you to know a little more about that which you are trying to conserve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by my2kidsmom

I do however believe that every member of soceity leaves an impact with their actions, whether they be good or bad. That is why I am very aware of my actions and try to be a good example for friends, neighbors, strangers, etc.

As am I, and as do I.

Quote:

Originally Posted by my2kidsmom

It's actually a concept those of us who are religiously minded beleive in, and I'm sure you would be excluded from that group.

Dumbo and his Magic Feather. None of these citizenship concepts has the slightest thing to do with religion, and certainly none to do with any particular religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by my2kidsmom

Oh yes, that's another example of a group: like minded folks who organize and establish a church where they can mutually worship as a GROUP.

Did you read my earlier post about organizations, unions, and associations? Did you comprehend the difference between these and "women" or "blacks" or "the elderly"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by my2kidsmom

And yes, I am able to make discernments about people and their motives. Call it a sixth sense, to some extent.

Saganista--Oh, ok, so "soceital expectations" held a gun to the heads of women in the past, and made them volunteer to do thngs they didn't want to do. Great answer. If I cared to hear anymore nonsense I would tell you that you are way too vague and to explain further, but I cannot stand to hear anymore jibberish. And no, there are no circumstances where "soceital expectations" caused me in my life to do things I didn't want to do. I guess I'm a bit stronger than you if you succombed to that pressure. And just because you have succombed to pressure to do things you didn't want to do, don't assume the rest of us are so weak.
Clearly you know nothing about religious concepts. Seeing oneself as an example for all of soceity is in fact a religious concept. I first learned it from the priest who did our pre-cana, and it exists in Catholicism, Judaism, and Mormanism, to specify a few. The concept is that we all play a role in soceity and should lead as a good example of what it means to be a moral, decent, good person. To be a good person or a bad person has an affect on all around us. It is for this reason that we should not even give the impression of impropriety. Just because you are unaware of a particular religious concept, does not mean it does not exist. Making up things concerning topics which you know nothing about may be interesting for you, but I am frankly bored of it. I have nothing more to say about your silliness.

Saganista--Oh, ok, so "soceital expectations" held a gun to the heads of women in the past, and made them volunteer to do thngs they didn't want to do. Great answer. If I cared to hear anymore nonsense I would tell you that you are way too vague and to explain further, but I cannot stand to hear anymore jibberish. And no, there are no circumstances where "soceital expectations" caused me in my life to do things I didn't want to do.

Yet you claim you're a "traditionalist?" So what is the impetus behind that claim?

It's hilarious that you also manage to disagree with the majority of historians, social scientists, sociologists, and academics. In so many ways.

I think that's up to the family to decide - they'd have their reasons for doing so.

I think the judgment that it is "sad" is your own, and not something that is fruitful in this context - much like others saying that a man that stays home is "wimpy" and "unmanly," and that women who choose to work are somehow to be a subject of scorn.

If that's how you feel, fine - keep it to yourself and to your family. But I'll be goddamned if we're going to keep perpetuating this bulls-t about proper gender roles based on nothing more than "tradition."

(That last two points were not directly addressed to you, mimimomx3, but "you" as a general audience, so please don't take them personally).

If you'd read carefully, I phrased my answer as gender neutral as possible: I think it's sad for any PARTNER or PARENT to be so disconnected fromt their child's life so the other PARTNER or PARENT can be with them 24/7. THis is unfair to the kids. Considering this is a public forum that would disappear if WE didn't share our ideas, I am happy to NOT keep my ideas to myself.

Do we really need "career women" in our society, rather than traditional, normal, regular women who are more apt to take on more traditional roles? Why is it the goal of almost every woman these days to have a career, rather than simply be supportive of a man who acts as head of a household? Can we not acknowledge that there are indeed differences between the genders, and women are better suited for certain tasks than others, many of which differ from those of men?

As this was your first post to C-D, I'd say- get out the troll spray.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.